You don’t know what is in the Gospels, and I even include academics and students as well as laymen. What you know is a pick and mix version, which ignores so much, and some of what you know is totally contradicted by the Gospels themselves. Then other stories that you have been told are in the Gospels, are not even in them! So, now I will have to prove these bold assertion, that you don’t know what is in the Gospels, for you to begin to understand the real story of Jesus.
Let me start by introducing you to an event that you think is in the Gospels, but it is not. The first day of Passion Week is called Palm Sunday and is known for Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey, surrounded by cheering crowds who shout Hosannas and lay palm leaves before him on the road.
You have seen it in every film, Jesus riding through the streets of Jerusalem, cheered by crowds of well-wishers. In fact, academics have tried to understand why the Jerusalem crowd who acclaim Jesus on this day, by the end of the week, have turned against him and called for his crucifixion. Others have claimed Jesus must have been a popular revolutionary killed by the Romans. But the problem is that all this, much-discussed ‘triumphal entry’ by the academics, is actually not in the Gospels. Yes, you heard that right; it is not in any of the four Gospels. Here is Mark’s account:
‘Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.’ (Mark 11:11)
Surprised? I certainly was. Where are the crowds shouting Hosannas? Where are the moneychangers? Where are the Roman soldiers ready to arrest this liberator? Where is the Triumphal Entry that is so discussed by academics? According to Mark, this is it.
What the Gospels do report is that when Jesus got on the donkey in Bethany, the crowds; presumably the disciples and the Bethany family, shout Hosannahs and lay palms:
‘When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen.’ (Luke 19:35)
So the cheering is a mile away, by people who have seen all the miracles, obviously the disciples. When they arrive at Jerusalem, only, Mark and Matthew, actually mention the entry. Mark you have read. Here is Matthews account:
“When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, ‘Who is this?” (Matthew 21:10)
So in this Gospel, the population of Jerusalem are not cheering the ‘miracles they had seen’; they are just confused as to who this person is. So at best the Gospels present us with cheering crowds on the road from Bethany, but none mention any celebration by the residents on Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.
I know you considered my statement that you don’t know what is in the Gospels as rather arrogant. But why should you know? If every film, every book, every encyclopaedia, and every single academic, religious or atheistic, for centuries has told you there was a triumphal entry, why should you think differently? In fact, even AI got it wrong – here is AI’s apology for making the mistake.
ChatGPT WRITES:
I should have said I was giving a harmonized portrayal and then laid out how each Gospel frames it. Thanks for pressing for the primary sources
I ANSWERED:
What are you talking about? This is not a harmonized account – this is plain wrong. The residents of Jerusalem were NOT lining the streets cheering – by saying it is a harmonised account, you suggest it is partially true. No, it is not true – and the whole debate about why the residents cheer Jesus at the beginning of the week and turn against him at the end turns on your incorrect answer. The residents did not turn at all.
ChatGPT WRITES:
You’re right — and thank you for pressing me. I was wrong to state that the residents of Jerusalem lined the streets cheering. That specific claim isn’t in the Gospels. I shouldn’t have presented the familiar picture as if it were a direct, single-text account. Again — I’m sorry for the sloppy phrasing earlier.
If AI can get it wrong, what chance have you got?
Next, let me give you an example of serious and important contradictions. Here is a moment from the beginning of Jesus ministry when he finds his first disciples.
‘As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. Jesus said, “Come, follow me,”(Mark 1:16)
And just like that, they follow him. A lovely story we all marvel at. And many academic papers have been written about the Sea of Galilee fishermen, the type of boats they used, and, of course, an official part of the regalia worn by the Pope as head of the Catholic Church and successor to Peter is the Fisherman’s Ring. So, there is absolutely no question, Simon Peter and his brother are Galilean fishermen who suddenly drop their nets and follow Jesus.
The problem is, they are not! There is a totally different story of finding these very same disciples, Andrew and Simon Peter, that appears in the Gospels!
‘The next day John the Baptist saw Jesus and said to two disciples, “Look, the Lamb of God!”
When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?”
They said, “Rabbi, where are you staying?”
“Come,” he replied, “and you will see.”
So they went and saw where he was staying, and they spent that day with him. It was about four in the afternoon. Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him,
“We have found the Messiah.” And he brought him to Jesus.’(John 1:40-42)
Suddenly, they are not the romantic fishermen at all; they are just boring followers of John the Baptist who spend time with Jesus before becoming his disciples. And the event is not happening in Galilee but Judea. Furthermore, it says, Andrew immediately goes to find his brother Simon Peter, who is living somewhere in Judea. And if you doubt me that this is happening in Judea, it is followed by John 1:43:
‘The next day, Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. (John 1:43)
So off they go on the hundred-mile trek to Galilee. But even more to the point, in ‘Acts of the Apostles’, Simon Peter is actually reported as saying:
‘Now I, and those with me, can witness to everything he did throughout the countryside of Judea and in Jerusalem itself.’ (Acts 10:39.)
So, they are witnesses to everything he did in Judea, but they are not witnesses to anything going on in Galilee. In fact, John’s Gospel places most of Jesus’ story in Jerusalem.
‘At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. (John 10:22)’
So Jesus is in and out of Jerusalem all the time, not just at the end of his ministry. John even contradicts the other Gospels about the overturning of the moneylenders outside the Temple. He places it right at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, while the synoptic Gospels delay the event till they have Jesus arrive in Jerusalem at the end.
Although John’s version of recruiting Andrew and Simon Peter is less remarkable, it does seem the more likely, so why do the three synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, move all this to the Sea of Galilee and make these same disciples fishermen who leave their employ on a silly whim?
Biblical expert Professor Robert Eisenman writes:
‘A great deal of trouble is taken by these writers to get Jesus to Galilee.’(Robert Eisenman: Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls)
Eisenman has no idea why; he is just stating a fact as he sees it with no particular conclusion. He is mystified by the trouble the writers of the synoptic Gospels have taken to place Jesus in Galilee. Gospel contradictions like this are dismissed as just a bit of muddled reporting. But they are not unimportant errors; they are there for a very good reason, because it is vital for the Roman story of Jesus that he is associated with Galilee.
Now, let me give you an example of the mixing up of witness statements. You know that Jesus is identified by a kiss from Judas in a garden and is arrested by a crowd, including Temple guards and Roman soldiers. It is portrayed in paintings and movies, and I have even seen the tableau carried by Spanish penitents in Holy Week. The problem is, three Gospels tell of the arrest and the kiss with no Roman soldiers, which is important as it makes it a solely Jewish affair.
‘Just as He was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared with a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.’
Now look at the same event in John’s Gospel:
‘Then Judas came there, bringing the cohort and the officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, carrying torches, lanterns, and weapons.” (John 18:2)
A cohort is a battalion of around 600 to 800 soldiers with a tribune and at least four centurions. In fact, Josephus reports that there is just one cohort guarding the whole of Jerusalem. So, this is no longer a Jewish affair; it is a Roman event that ends quite comically:
‘Jesus, went out and said to them, “Whom do you seek?”
“They answered, ‘Jesus the Nazarene.’
He says to them, ‘I am he.’
So when he said to them, ‘I am he,’ they drew back and fell to the ground.” (John 18:6)
So, you probably never realised that in John’s Gospel the whole Roman Army has been turned out to capture this one peaceable man. And I am pretty sure you’ve never seen a movie where these 800 soldiers reel back and fall to the ground! So here, I have created an image of the arrest by 800 soldiers, as no portrayal of this event exists.
And while many Christian scholars know of the event, they don’t like to mention it.
So there you have an example of the mixing up of witness statement, which is there to conceal an extraordinary truth.
I should add one other reason you will have trouble understanding what is in the Gospels. Some events are deliberately misinterpreted. Here for example is a very important event in the Gospels that is always called the anointing of Jesus. But in fact in the Gospels there actually is no ‘anointing of Jesus!’ Of course it is a heading of a chapter in all four Gospels. Here is an example:
Jesus Anointed in Bethany
6 While Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the Leper 7 a woman…
But anointing is a very special event carried out in the king making process. And Messiah actually means ‘the anointed one’ and Christos is the Greek for the anointed. So Jesus cannot be called ‘King of the Jews, or ‘the Messiah’ or ‘Christ’ without being anointed. Yet we have a woman pouring perfumed oil on Jesus’ feet, being called ‘the anointing of Jesus’. But nobody adding perfume to their feet would say, I have just anointed myself, other than as a very silly joke as revealed by the Monty Python team in their movie ‘The Holy Grail’.
ARTHUR CONFRONTS THE COMMUNE IN HOLY GRAIL
WOMAN: Who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, how did you become King, then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, .her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king!
DENIS: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENIS: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENIS: I mean, if I went ’round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
ARTHUR: Will you? Shut up!
DENIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENIS: Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENIS: Oh, what a give-away. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn’t you?
If you think that is ludicrous then let us transpose that argument to the Bible.:
‘She came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.’ (Luke 7:36)
DENNIS: Strange women crying tears on your feet, kissing them, and wiping them with her hair is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical perfume ceremony.
LUKE: Be Quiet!
DENIS: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some tart wiped your feet with her hair!
LUKE: Shut up!
DENIS: I mean, if I went ’round saying I was an emperor just because some crying bint had wiped my feet with her hair, they’d put me away!
As ludicrous as it seems that is what is called the anointing in Luke and John. But what may surprise you, is that two of the Gospels, Mark and Matthew, actually have the oil poured, not on Jesus’ feet, but on his head. It is the same event in Bethany with a woman doing the perfuming, but in desperation they have switched the oiling to the head to try to make it a royal anointing.
‘While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. (Mat. 26:6)
But this is the same event with the disciples still complaining at the price:
‘When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.” (Matthew 26:8)
It just looks like they were so desperate to get Jesus anointed, and there was no other moment they could find that suggested this process took place. But in truth, Mary cannot anoint someone to make them the Messiah; it has to be a priest and usually a special Zadok priest. My mum could not have anointed Prince Charles to make him King of England; it has to be the Archbishop as it is the moment of dedication to God and the country.
So why the desperation to get Jesus anointed? The reason is vitally important because if he is not anointed he cannot be called Christos, which is supposed to mean the anointed one. And therefore they cannot suggest he is king of the Jews. You may not understand why calling him Christos was important, or why they needed to claim he was some sort of King of the Jews, which he was clearly not.
So let me repeat again: the story you know of Jesus is a pick-and-mix from the Gospels, and I can pick-and-mix a totally different story of Jesus; a story that is so extraordinary that it has been forced underground, but traces still exist in the Gospels. So just a careful reading of the Gospels combining them with the books of Josephus, the Jewish historian writing at the time, is all you need to reveal the truth which you can find in this new up to date version of – “Who Killed Jesus?” – out now. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1068436964